






,^^ 






.\^^^^:mw: J \ 



\ 






O > 







v..X^^ ' 



. \'^.- 




^0 




o ♦ » , 


T 


(^ 




'^ 










/ 




* /■ 






• 


^''^^' 


.^^ 


^<. ' 


o . . " 


^ 




^ 








^^ 



^0v^ 







.0 






.V n M O f^ 



" O 



"*":, 



oV 






^^-n^. 



^ 






c ° " ° - 






•<*'S 



.7^ - 






'^ 






^' 






'^-^ .-^■ 









<^x- ^^ 



<^^ 



'V 






^' 



^ 



O N O 









-^ •.;*'^^*:- ^i 



o_ 



V 



;^ 



>'.^ 


' , ■'1™ t/ • 


"^ - ■■%. 


'^' <^°^ \t 


V'- 


^0 '' 


* H> 


V f ' • °- cv 


<^ ,-« 


^ ► <? <a . rA 




^^ 









,/;& ■ 



^o. 









A'-- 









0^ .L^l% %> 



o / 



l» O . 









m; 



-..•^' 



-^^.^ 



c" 



-^ 0^ ! ^ 






« A 













^^0^ 
















7^ « ^^ 0^ 













^^Z'" 



.^" 






r I REPORT 



ON 



AMERICAN HISTORIES; 



/■ 



BY MARCI.US WILLSON, 



AUTBOa 07 



V 



JUVENILE AMERICAN HISTORY, 



HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, 



AMERICAN HISTORY, 



AITD 



CO]\IPREIIENSIYE CHART OF A3IERICAN HISTORY. 



PUBLISHED BT 

MARK H. NEWMAN &, CO., 

199 BROADWAY, 

NEW YORK. 

1S47. 



REPORT 

ON THE 

SUBJECT OF AMERICAN HISTORIES. 



As the author of the accompanying Report has recently presented to 
the public a history for competition with those here reviewed, it is proper 
that the following statement should be made, showing the true character 
of the Report, and the manner in which it was first brought before the 
public. 

In 1844, the "New Jersey Society of Teachers and Friends of 
Education," appointed a " Book Committee" of 23 members, comprising 
many of the most pnjminent " friends of education" throughout the state. 
This large committee was divided into sub-committees, among which lat- 
ter was a " Committee on Histories," consisting of the following individ- 
uals : — Mr. M. Willson, of Newark ; Rev. Dr. Murray, of Elizabethtown ; 
Rev. Mr. Scott, of Newark, and Mr. Gook, then Pnucipal of a Female 
Seminary at Blo(jmfieId, and now Principal of the Mechanics' School, 
New York city. Mr. Willson was specially apj)ointed chairman of the 
Historical Committee, it being known to the society that ho was then en- 
gaged in the compilation of a history of the United States — he having 
previously read in public some criticisms on the subject of American 
history. 

At a quarterly meeting of the society, held in December, 1844, a reso- 
lution was passed, re([uesting from the Historical Committee a report on 
the sul)iect of Histories, at the next meeting of the society. 

Mr. Willson, at the request of the sub-committee, of which he was 
chairman, prepared a report, called the members of the committee to- 
gether and submitted the same to them. The rejiort was approved by 
them, and ordered to be laid before the large State Committee for its ac- 
tion. At a meeting of the State Committee, held prior to the March 
([uarterly meeting of the society, said report was presented, approved, and 
ordered to be read before the society. 

At the regular quarterly meeting of the society, held March 7th, 1845, 
the State Committee was called upon for reports, when said committee 
submitted the report on Histories, which was read by Mr. Willson. Said 
report being then before the society, a motion was made, and adopted 
unanimously, that said report be published, — or so much of the same as 
Mr. Willson should think desirable. About one-third of said report was 
pubhshed in the Biblical Repository for July, 1845, and at the same time 
nearly one half of the entire rejjort was published in pamphlet form; — 
the same portion of the report that is embraced in the following pages. 

Jld^ Of the Errors of Fact contained in the several histories alluded to, 
about one half on\y, of those specified in-the original rejiort presented to 
the society, have been published in the pamphlet Review. Since the Re- 
view was first published, the errors pointed out by it have been corrected 
in several of the works referred to, while most of the errors not thus ex- 
posed are still retained in them. 



tFrom the Biblical Repository of July, 1845.] 

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF AMERICAN COMMON 
SCHOOL HISTORIES : 

As embraced in a Report submitted to the " Neto Jersey Society of 
Teachers and Friends of Education,'' at a quarterly meeting lield 
March 7, 1845. 

BY M. WILLSON, N. Y. 

The Report, from which the following article is abridged, 
was prepared for the New Jersey Education Society, by its re- 
quest ; and in accordance with a resolution of the Society, the 
same is now submitted to the public. 

The importance of the subject announced will be manifest, 
when it is remembered that it is from our CQimnon school his- 
tories, those unassuming companions of the school-room, and not 
from those more elaborate writings which grace the libraries of 
the men of wealth and the professional scholar, that the great 
mass of our citizens must ever derive their knowledge of the 
character, toils, and privations of our fathers, and of the ori'i-in 
and nature of our free institutions. 

It is the object of the following article, to give our prominent 
school histories such a review, as will enable all who feel an 
interest in the subject, to judge more understandingly of their 
comparative merits, and of their relative claims to the confi- 
dence and the patronage of tlie public. The task that we have 
undertaken is, of itself, a delicate one ; and the more so, fiom 
the circumstance, that the reviewer exposes himself to become 
the reviewed. The spirit of searching criticism, however, has 
already gone abroad among teachers and friends of education ; 
and who shaU check its progress ? It is the ordeal through 
which every ii^iportant school-boolc must hereafter pass to pub- 
lic favor. Thfe able and critical discussions upon the merits of 
school-books, recently called forth in the Educational Society 
of New Jersey L are indications of the same spirit ; and we begin 



Z A CRITICAL REVIEW OF 

to have some confidence, that the popularity of a school-book 
will, at no distant day, depend upon its intrinsic merits ; and 
not, as heretofore, upon the favor of popular names, the wealth 
and enterprise of publishers, and the chance condition of get- 
ting it into certain fortunate channels of trade. 

The subject of school histories will be examined under four 
heads : Arrangement, Anachronisms, Accuracy, and Literary 
Merits. 

1. Arrangement. Two different plans of arrangement 
have been adopted by American historians, in treating of our 
early colonial history. One plan is that of particular or indi- 
vidual history ; the other, that of common, or general history. 
The'former, technically speaking, is history ethnograpJilcally 
arranged, or accordins; to nations and tribes : the latter is bis- 
tory chronographically arranged, in which events in different 
nations are brought together and given in the order of time in 
which they occurred. The first of these methods, as applied 
to our own country, pursues the history of each colony sepa- 
rately (]own to the period of the French and Indian War, in 
1754, after which, the separate and individual history of each 
colony is abandoned, and all are uniied in one common his- 
tory. This arrangement has been adopted by Hale and 01- 
ney ; and by Frost, with respect to all the colonies except those 
of New England. 

The other plan of arrangement carries along together the 
contemporary events which happened in different colonies, and 
thus, as far as possible, blends the whole in one common his- 
tory. This latter plan has been adopted by Goodrich, Grim- 
shaw, Mrs. Willard, and in the Pictorial History of S. G. Good- 
rich, the author of Peter Parley's Tales. 

It is obvious that the history of a colony may be learned 
much more readily where the events are narrated in one un- 
broken series, and in one chapter, than where the series is 
frequently interrupted, and the events are found dispersed 
through a dozen chapters. Let any one search for the 
colonial history of Virginia in the volumes of Bancroft, and 
he will find a little here, and a little there ; fcnd unless he 



AMERICAN COMMON SCHOOL HISTORIES. 3 

should read the three vokimes through, he will be likely to 
omit some portion of Yirginian history. Let it not, however, 
be supposed that we depreciate the value of Bancroft's His- 
tory. We regard it as the best, for its purposes, that has yet 
been written. In our view, it is well adapted to those already 
familiar with the separate history of each colony, but exceed- 
ingly unfit for a school-book. Circumstances in the history 
of one colony are often narrated by Bancroft in connection 
with those of another colony, for the purpose of elucidating 
some important principle. They are links taken from the 
chain of particular history, and, for especial purposes, formed 
into new series; and unless the reader can restore them to 
their proper places, the histories to which they belong must 
appear incomplete and broken. More fully to show the faulti- 
ness of this mode of arrangement for a school-book, we refer 
to Mrs. Willard's History, and to Goodrich's Pictorial History, 
in both which this plan is adopted. 

Of those histories that have adopted the other plan of ar- 
rangement, the well-k'iown and early work of Hale yet stands 
preeminent in this particular, and greatly in advance of any 
of its competitors. 

In some of our school histories, a highly important feature 
has recently been introduced, which may properly be noticed 
under the head of arrangement. We allude to the introduc- 
tion of maps. 

There are those living who recollect the time when geog- 
raphy was studied in our schools without the aid of maps ; 
but how preposterous would now appear the attempt to teach 
a child a knowledge of localities by description only. We 
believe the day is not far distant, when the attempt to impart 
a knowledge of history, without the aid of historical maps, 
will be deemed almost as great an absurdity. Will it be 
said that our ordinary school atlases furnish all the neces- 
sary aids 'I Without stating other numerous objections, we 
remark that the reader may search in vain, on modern 
maps, for the names of numerous places, familiar in history, 
but forgotten in modern topography, because important only 



4 ' A CRITICAL REVIEW OF 

t 

in the remembrance of what they have been. But one or 
two dilapidated dweUings now mark the site of Jamestown, 
and among the ruins of the fortress of Louisburg, the once 
called Gibraltar of America, a few sheep roam for pastur- 
age, and a few fishermen's liuts now grace the site where 
once frowned the royal batteries. In the topography of 
the present, the monuments of the past are fast wasting 
away, and if we Avould restore their already half-effaced 
inscriptions, like Old Mortality, we must chisel them anew. 
No American school history should be written without its 
historical maps, on which should be given, with enlarged 
plans when necessary, the localities of all places distin- 
guished in our history; such as Ticonderoga and Crown 
Point ; Lexington and Bunker's Hill ; Forts Stanwix and 
Schuyler ; Forts Washington, and Lee, and Edward ; Forts 
Clinton and Montgomery, Stony Point, Valley Forge and 
Wyoming, and the names of numerous other places not found 
on common maps. 

In our school histories, historical maps have been introduced 
only in those of Mrs. Willard, and in the Pictorial Histor}'^ of 
Goodrich. 

2. Anachronisms. — The length of a year was fixed by Julias 
Caesar at 365 days and six hours, which is about eleven minutes 
and a fifth more than the true solar year, amounting in 130 years 
to one entire day, and a small fraction over. At the time of 
the Council of Nice, in the year 325, it was found that the 
vernal equinox had changed from the 25th to the 21st of 
March, and there it was fixed by the Council, but in 1582, 
it had receded to the 11th. To bring it back therfefore. Pope 
Gregory decreed that ten days should be taken out of the 
month of October, 1582 ; and that what would otherwise 
have been called the 10th should be called the 20th. It 
was, moreover, decreed that to prevent the accumulation of 
the same error in future, three days should be abated in every 
400 years, by restoring leap years to common years at the 
end of three successive centuries, and making leap year again 
at the close of every fourth century. In other words, the 



AMERICAN COMMON SCHOOL HISTORIES. 5 

year 1600 should be leap year as usual, but 1700, 1800, 
and 1900, the first three successive centuries, although their 
numbers are divisible by 4, should be common years, allow- 
ing February but 28 days ; while the year 2000, being at the 
close of the 4th century, should be leap year; and thus in 
every subsequent 400 years. This correction leaves but a 
small error, amounting to less than a day and a half in 5000 
years. 

As different European nations then commenced the year 
at different periods, some on the 1st of January, some on the 
25th of March, and others on the 25th of December, Pope 
Gregory, in order to produce uniformity, adopted the Roman 
method and decreed that the year should commence on the 
1st of January. Catholic nations and Catholic writers im- 
mediately adopted these regulations of the Pope, but they 
were for a long time rejected by Protestants. The Scots, 
who from time immemorial commenced the year on the 25th 
of March, adopted the Gregoiian style in 1599, but the Eng- 
lish, with wonderful pertinacity, held out against these wise 
regulations during more than 150 years ; during which time 
all their historians retained the old style in their dates. In 
1751, the English Parliament enacted that the year should 
commence on the 1st of January, and that the 3d of Septem- 
ber of that year should be called the 14th, thereby striking out 
eleven days, which the English calendar then required to re- 
duce it to the Gregorian. 

As most of our colonial history is embraced between the 
time of the Gregorian reformation in 1582, and its adoption 
by the English Parliament in 1751, and as our historians 
have taken their materials partly from Catholic, and partly 
from Protestant writers, as might be expected, a great confu- 
sion of dates has arisen, and we frequently find, on the same 
page, even in our best histories, part of the dates in old style, 
and part in new. More particularly is this the case in regard 
to the dates in the days of the month, for in most cases recent 
historians have made the change with respect to the date of 
the year. 



6 A CRITICAL liEVIEW OF 

During most of the period of our colonial history, a French 
colony occupied Canada on our North, while French and 
Spanish colonies were seated in Florida and Louisiana, on our 
South and West. These were Catholic colonies, and their his- 
tories, intimately connected with ours, have been written by 
Catholic writers, who adopted the Gregorian or ncAV style. Our 
colonial writers, on the contrary, retained the old style. That 
our modern compilers, in taking their dates from these two 
sources, have not been at all careful to distinguish between 
these two styles, and that they thus present, a great confusion 
of dates, we shall show by examples. 

In the accounts given of the destruction of Salmon Falls in 
1689, Mather's Magnaha, vii. 68, Belknap's New Hampshire, 
i. 132, Williamson's Maine, i. 618, and Holmes's Annals, i. 
431, following the English authorities, date the event March 
18, being old style ; while Drake's Indian History, B. iii. 118, 
and Bancroft, iii, 182, both following Charlevoix, ii. 51, give 
the dale according to new style, with the exception of an error 
of one day. Thus, in the different accounts of this event 
which American writers give, we find a discrepancy of ten 
days in the date. It may be remarked that, on the same page 
with the foregoing, Bancroft dates the destruction of Schenec- 
tady according to old style, thus changing his mode of reckon- 
ing within the compass of a few lines. AH our histories, how- 
ever, date this event according to old style, because they take 
the date from the English writers, for although Charlevoix 
gives a minute account of this transaction, he omits the date. 
The most particular account we have is from Colonel Schuy- 
ler, then mayor of Albany, who wrote it nine days after the 
event, under date of 15th Feb., 1689, equivalent to 25th Feb- 
ruary, 1690. 

Bancroft, iii. 184-185, gives the events of the expedition of 
Sir William Phipps against Port Royal and Quebec in 1690, 
according to the French dates, (see Charlevoix ii. 82-87,) 
while Holmes's Annals, i. 432, Williamson's Maine, i. 598, 
and other works, give the English dates, a difference of ten 
days. Thus Bancroft dates the summons for the surrender of 



AMERICAN COMMON SCHOOL HISTORIES. 7 

Quebec, Oct. 16th, the landing of the troops Oct. 18th, and 
their reembarkation Oct. 21st ; while Holmes dates these 
events Oct. 6th, Sth, and 11th. It may be remarked here 
that Murray's British America, Edinburgh edition, a valuable 
English work, follows the new style throughout in its history 
of Canada. The singular fact is presented that all the histo- 
ries of Canada under the French, give the dates in new style, 
while all the histories of the contemporary English colonies 
retain the old style. 

The account of Frontenac's expedition against the Onon- 
dagas, in 1696, is taken exclusively from the French authori- 
ties, from Charlevoix, ii. 168 to 175, and here all our histories 
follow the new style. All our accounts of the massacre of the 
French by the Natchez Indians, in 1729, being taken from 
French writers, follow the new style. Charlevoix, ii. 457, dates 
the event Nov. 28th. Thus also Holmes, i, 545, and Bancroft, 
iii. 350, etc. 

Holmes, Hutchinson, Belknap, Trumbull, Smith, etc., in 
the accounts which they give of the expedition of Nicholson 
against Port Royal in 1710, give the dates in old style. Ban- 
croft, iii. 218, gives the marginal dates according to both modes, 
old style and new. Charlevoix's account is in vol. ii. 343-345, 
where, as usual, the dates are given in new style. 

All our histories, with one exception, follow the old style in 
giving an account of the conquest of New Amsterdam, (now 
New- York,) by the English in 1664. The articles of capitula- 
tion, as given in full in Smith's New York, i. 19-21, are dated 
thus, "August the 27th, old style, 1664." Bancroft is the 
only writer who dates this event according to new style ; but, 
strange to say, his account of the surrender of Albany a few 
days later, and of the reduction of the Swedes on the Dela- 
ware, retains the old style. 

Important European treaties likewise have received differ- 
ent dates from our best writers. Thus the treaty of Ryswick, 
which, closed King WiUiam's war, is dated in some of our 
histories, Sept. 10th, 1697, and in others Sept. 20th, the for- 
mer being old style, and the latter new. The treaty of 



8 A CRITICAL REVIEW OF 

Utrecht, which closed Queen Anne's war, is dated by Holmes 
and by most American writers, March 31st, 1713 ; but by 
Bancroft it is dated April 11th ; which is the date given 
by French writers. All our school histories which give 
the date, retain the old style, although even here they 
commit an error of one day, dating March 30thy instead of 
March 31st. 

Examples of this kind might be greatly multiplied, but 
"those already given are sufficient to show the numerous dis- 
crepancies in dates among our best writers. Not one of them 
appeals to have endeavored to make his dates correspond to 
either style throughout, and in nK)st cases not the least atten- 
tion, apparently, has been given to the subject, the author 
having taken his dates indiscriminately from such authorities^ 
either Cathohc or Protestant, as best .suited his convenience. 
It might be supposed that the highly valuable and otherwise 
accurate history of Bancroft, would not have overlooked this 
matter, and that the dates would have preserved a uniformity 
either according to old style or new. But while Bancroft, 
the same as most other writers, always changes the date of 
the year from old style to new, he sometimes changes the date 
of the day of the month and sometimes he does not. We 
have given a few examples in which he has made the change. 
We will notice a few in which he has not. Throughout our 
colonial history, generally, he has not made the change. 
The dates in the New England history are mostly in old 
style. The landing of the Pilgrims is dated December 11th, 
etc. In the following cases, among many others, the date of 
the year is correctly changed, but the date of the day of the 
month is not. 

The adoption of the early constitution of Connecticut stands 
on the records of the colony, January 14th, 1638. See Trum- 
bull's Connecticut. As this was inserted according to old style, 
when the year commenced on the 25th of March, the true 
date in new style is .Tan. 24th, 1639, a year and ten days later. 
But Bancroft, i. p. 402, instead of dating it Jan. 24th, says 
Jan. 14, 1639. 



AMERICAN COMMON SCHOOL HISTORIES. ^V 

The patent, incorporating the Providence and Rhode Island 
Plantations, is dated in the original March 14th, 1643. See 
Knowles's Roger Williams, Appendix. This is equivalent to 
March 24th, 1644, new style. But Bancroft, and most of our 
recent writers, retain the March 14th, while they change the 
year. 

The articles by which Virginia submitted to Parliament 
are dated March 12, 1651, equivalent to March 22, 1652. 
Holmes, Bancroft, and others, change the year, but not the 
day. 

The original grant of Carolina to Lord Clarendon, is dated 
March 24th, 1662, In the Memoirs de I'Amerique, iv. 554 to 
585, it is found in French with the date in new style (with 
an error, however, of one day), viz., April 4, 1663. Ban- 
croft, Holmes, etc., change the date of the year, but not of the 
day. ♦ 

The date given to the first constitution of New Jersey, as 
found in full in Smith's New Jersey, Appendix, p. 512 to 
521, is " Feb. 10th, 1664." This, according to our mode of 
reckonijjg, would be previous to the grant to the Duke of York, 
and before there was any such province as New Jersey. Gor- 
don, in his history of New Jersey, Note, p. 24, supposes there- 
fore that Smith's history, and other authorities which he had 
consulted were wrong. But had he known or reflected that 
this date is in old style, making the true date a year and ten 
days later, the whole difficulty would have been removed. 
Bancroft, ii. 316, retains the Feb. 10th, but changes the year 
to 1665. 

The charter or fundamental laws of West New Jersey, aa 
given in full in Smith's N. Jersey, Appendix, p. 521 to 539, are 
dated March 3, 1676. This being old style, the date in new 
style would be March 13, 1677. Bancroft, ii. 358, accordingly 
dates it 1677, but he retains the March 3, instead of giving 
March 13. 

We should here remark that in England, previous to the 
civil war, which resulted in the subversion of monarchy in 
1649, public documents, charters, deeds, etc., did not usually 



^ 



A CRITICAL REVIEW OF 



receive the date of the year of our Lord, but the date of the 
year of the King's reign. Thus the charter of Mass. Bay col- 
ony is dated in this manner. " Witness ourself at Westminster 
the fourth day of Marche in the fourth yeare of our raigne." 
After the subversion of monarchy, the date of the year was given 
according to old style, previous to 1751. The examples we 
have just quoted are such as received the date of the year. 

If the confusion and discrepancies which we have noticed 
are found in American histories, where there seems to be so lit- 
tle occasion for them, it might be interesting to inquire how it 
is with European histories, where Catholic and Protestant wri- 
ters ffive an account of the same events. An examination will 
show that in French and in English histories similar and even 
greater discrepancies prevail. The histories of England and 
France are intimately connected toward the close of the 17th 
century, and during the first half of the 18th, and although 
during this period the French writers generally followed the 
new style, while the English retained the old, yet the writers 
on either side frequently abandon their system, when they are 
obliged to go to the opposite side for authorities. We will com- 
pare a few dates as given in the French History of D'Anquetil, 
and the EngHsh of Smollet. 

The naval battle of La Hogue in 1692, is dated by Smollet 
May 19th, by D'Anquetil May 29, the former in old style, the 
latter in new. 

Battle of Hoch Stadt in 1704, both agree. 

Battle of Turin, Sept. 7, 1706, both agree. 

Battle of Malplaquet, July 11, 1709, both agree. 

Treaty of Aix la Chapelle in 1748, Smollet says Oct. 7, 
D'Anquetil Oct. 18.* 

Let us, however, return to American common school histo- 
ries, and witness the effect there produced by such discrepan- 
cies. Notwithstanding the comparatively few dates that are 
retained in these works, there is enough to show the sources 
from which they originated. Our English histories of France 

* Most of the examples of this class are omitted. — Ed. 



AMERICAN COMMON SCHOOL HISTORIES. '• 11 

present these same discrepancies, giving dates, part of them in 
old style, and part of them in new, showing that the authori- 
ties relied on w^ere mostly English. Our common school his- 
tories of the United States have adopted the old style through- 
out our colonial history, except in a few instances, some of 
which we will now notice. Events pertaining to Canadian 
history alone, are generally given in new style, when the dates 
are mentioned. It is well known that the eastern coasts of 
America were granted away by series of patents both by the 
English and the French monarchs. Our histories give the 
dates of the French patents in new style, and those of the 
English patents in old style. 

Some of our school histories date the landin^r of the Pil- 
grims at Plymouth Dec. 11th, 1620. This is old style, and is 
the date given by Hale, Webster, Frost, and Grimshaw, and 
the date probably designed by Mrs. Willard. Both Olney and 
Goodrich, however, date this event Dec. 22d, a date which 
they erroneously supposed to correspond in new style with 
Dec. 11th, old style. In the same verse with this date, Olney 
says the Pilgrims arrived at Cape Cod Nov. 9th. Yet Nov. 
9th is the date in old style. Here are then two dates, only 
two lines apart, one in old style, and the other in new. Good- 
rich, with the exception of the date of the landing of the Pil- 
grims, gives all the other dates, throughout the colonial his- 
tory, in old style. The Pictorial History, by S. G. Goodrich, 
the author of Peter Parley's Tales, throughout the whole ac- 
count of the voyage, landing and first winter of the Pilgrims^ 
gives the dates accurately in new style ; but throughout all the 
other colonial histories, it gives the dates in old style. Why 
these changes, this want of system, of uniformity, we leave to 
others to explain as best they can. But let them not judge 
our common school histories too severely, for we have shown 
that our large and best histories are equally, if not even more 
censurable. 

It has been observed that Olney and Goodrich date the 
landing of the Pilgrims Dec. 22d. This is the date which 
most of our modern writers give, when they attempt to 



12 ^ A CRITICAL REVIEW OF 

change the date of this event from old style to new. Holmes, 
in his Annals, vol. i. p. 163, speaking of this event, says, " The 
22d of December, new style, corresponding to the 11th, old 
style, has long been observed at Plymouth, and occasionally 
at Boston, in commemoration of the landing of the Fathers.". 
The 22d of December has indeed long been observed in this 
manner, yet it can easily be shown that it is not the anniver- 
sary of the event which it is designed to commemorate. The 
true anniversary is the 21st of December, and not the 22d. 
This may be shown, both by actual computation, and by ref- 
erence to the decree of Gregory, in 1582. At this date, the re- 
vision of the calendar required ten days to be struck out for its 
correction, and as, at the rate of eleven minutes and a fifth per 
year, it would require an addition of 130 years for the error to 
amount to an entire day, eleven days should not be struck out 
until the year 1712. Gregory, however, decided that the 
change should be made in the year 1700. Ten days, there- 
fore, and not eleven should be struck out in order to change 
dates from old style to new between the years 1600 and 1700. 
For 1 620 the change can be only ten days. The error of the 
New England people, and of the historians who have copied 
it, arose from not reflecting that tlie decree of Parliament, 
abating eleven days, was inapplicable to events that occurred 
prior to the year 1700. 

3. Having completed our examination of the Arrange- 
ment and Anachronisms of our several school histories, 
we shall now proceed to examine their claims to Accuracy 
in the statement of facts. Under ihis head, we do 
not know that we can do better than to point out briefly the 
errors, whether of ignorance or of carelessness, into which 
we believe they have fallen, giving at the same time, when- 
ever necessary, our authorities for their correction. We shall 
quote from all our prominent school histories indiscriminately, 
arranging the supposed errors according to the dates of the 
events to which they refer. We commence with the year 
1497, the year of the discovery of the North American con- 
tinent. 



AMERICAN COMMON SCHOOL HISTORIES. 13 

Hale, Goodrich, Olney, Webster, Grimshaw, and Mrs. Wil- 
lard, have adopted an error of early writers in supposing that 
Newfoundland was the first land discovered by the Cabots in 
1497. It is now conceded we believe, by all modern writers of 
repute, that the land first discovered was the coast of Labra- 
dor. See Memoir of Sebastian Cabot, p. 51. Murray's Brit- 
ish America (Edinburgh Edition), ii, 277. Also Bancroft, i. 
p. 9, etc. 

In Webster's history, pp. 76, 11^ it is stated that the Ca- 
bots discovered "Prima Vista," supposed to be Newfoundland, 
in 1494 or 5, and that during the second voyage, in 1498, the 
first discovery of the continent was made, June 11th, old 
style. It is now a well established fact that the Cabots sailed 
on their first voyage in May, 1497, instead of 1494 or 5, 
as Webster states, and that they discovered land on the 24th 
of June, old style, of the same year. See with reference to 
this supposed voyage, in 1494 or 5, Bozman's Maryland, i. 
11, Note, in which the account is shown to be unworthy of 
credit ; see also Appendix 1st, establishing the date of the pa- 
tent to the Cabots. 

Frost, p. 21, says that Cabot discovered the continent June 
14. On the contrary, the true date is June 24th, old style, or 
July 3d, new style. . See in Hakluyt, iii. 6, the words of Se- 
bastian Cabot himself, " Die 24 Junii," etc. " Hanc autem ap- 
pellant terram primum visam." Of course, Cabot dated ac- 
cording to old style. 

Mrs. Willard, in giving an account of the expedition of 
De Soto, who landed in Florida in 1539, states, that after 
his death " the officer who succeeded him in conmmnd 
lost no time in conducting the poor remains of the army 
down the Mississippi, and thence to Cuba." The same gen- 
eral statement is made in Goodrich, p. 17, Goodrich's Pict. 
Hist., p. 22, and Olney, p. 28. The error is probably taken 
from Belknap's Biognaphy, article De Soto. Belknap inad- 
vertently states that the remnant of the party embarked for 
Cuba, but his authorities state differently. Instead of the 
statement being true that the party lost no time before they 

2 



14 A CRITICAL REVIEW OF 

embarked on the Mississippi, they actually spent six summer 
months in attempting to penetrate to Mexico by land, after 
which they returned to the Mississippi and there passed the 
winter; so that it was a year and forty days after the death 
of De Soto before they embarked on the Mississippi, and then 
instead of returliing to Cuba, as is stated, after leaving the 
Mississippi they turned to the right, followed the coast and 
terminated their voyage at tlie river Panuco, in Mexico. 
The party did not return to Cuba at all. The materials for 
obtaining a correct knowledge of the fects are sufficiently 
ample. Besides the original Portuguese and Spanish narra- 
tions, which are mostly copied by Herrera, Purchas, Harris, antl 
others, an account of this expedition, given with great minute- 
ness of detail, may be found in Theodore Irving's " Conquest 
of Florida." 

Mrs. Willard, on p. 20 of the Abridgment, enumerates the 
Cherokees as belonging to the Mobilian family of tribes. 
But we believe that no other writer has thus classed them. 
They formed a distinct nation, speaking a language which had 
no affinity to the Mobilian or Muskogee — Choctaw. See Gal- 
latin's Synopsis in vol. ii. of Archa^ologia Americana, and other 
works on Indian history. 

Frost, p. 51; speaking of Port Royal, says. " It was the 
oldest Christian settlement in North America, having been 
founded in 1605." Yet the Spaniards had settlements in 
Mexico nearly a century previous, and St. Augustine, in 
Florida, was founded in 1565, thirty-nine years before Port 
Royal. 

Goodrich's Pictorial History says, the design of the Vir- 
ginia colony which settled at Jamestown, was to settle on 
Roanoke river. On the contrary, they designed to settle on 
Roanoke Island. 

Grimshaw, p. 82, in speaking of the respective claims of the 
French and the English to American territory, adduces as an 
argument in favor of the French claim, that Q,uebec was set- 
tled before Jamestown. Yet, on the contrary, Jamestown was 
settled about fifteen months before Quebec. 



AMERICAN COMMON SCHOOL HISTORIES. 15 

Some of our histories state that the master of the Mayflower 
having been bribed by the Dutch, intentionally carried the ves- 
sel further nortli than Hudson river, etc. See Hale, p. 28, and 
Grimshaw, p. 46. These statements are now generally conce- 
ded to be erroneous. The New York historians reject the idea 
of treachery. See also Bancroft, vol. i. p. 309, who says, " Not 
by the treachery, but rather by the ignorance and self-will of 
their captain." See also Gordon's New Jersey, p. 7. who says, 
" The allegation that the captain was bribed by the Dutch, is 
not entitled to credence." 

Mrs. Willard, p. 38, states that " Weston's colony," which 
settled at Weymouth, came out in the fall of 1621. Mrs. 
Willard likewise states that they passed the ivmter with the 
Plymouth colony, enjoying their hospitahty, etc. Both are 
errors. The colony came out in the summer of 1622, and 
removed to Weymouth in the autumn of the same year. 
See Bancroft, vol. i. p. 318, Morton's New England Memo- 
rial, p. 79, Baylie's Memoir of Plymouth colony, vol. i. p. 
93, Holmes's Annals, p. 177, and Prince's Chronology, p. 
204. 

Hale, p. 32, Frost, p. 93, and Ohiey, p. 58, date the banish- 
ment of Roger Wilhanis from Massachusetts Bay colony in 
1634. Yet the decree of banishment was given in the latter 
part of 1635, and he did not leave the colony until the begin- 
ning of the year 1636. Olney, in a biograjjhical note, p. 71, 
gives the correct date. Holmes's Annals, vol. i. p. 225, gives 
the wrong date. See Bancroft, vol. i. p. 377, and Baylie's Me- 
moir of Plymouth Colony, p. 221. 

All the, common school histories that we have examined, 
and which give the date, viz. Hale's, Olney's:, Goodrich's 
Gritnshaw's, Frost's, Mrs. Willard's and Goodrich's Pictorial 
History, date the settleiiienl of Delaware by the Sv.'cdes, in 
1626 or 7, except Webster, who says between 1630 and 
1637. Although the statements found in tlie hrst seven of 
our school histories just mentioned, are such as are given by 
all earl}' writers on American history, yet later writers have 
conclusively shown that they are errors, and that the Swedish 



16 ^ A CRITICAL REVIEW OP 

colony was not planted until 1638, eleven years after the 
time usually stated. Gordon's New Jersey, p. 10, says the 
common date '-is an error, arising from the historian having 
inferred that a colony had been established immediately after 
the proposition for forming it had been published in Sweden." 
Moreover, it is known that the settlement was not made until 
after the death of Gustavus Adolphus, which occurred in 
1632. Gordon's authorities are very satisfactory, but Ban- 
croft, ii. 286, is even more explicit, and removes all doubt 
about the date. It is surprising that none of our common 
school histories have made the correction. Mrs. Willard, p. 
77, commits a still further error, by stating that the Swedish 
colony settled on the east side of Delaware river, callii^ the 
country New Sweden. On the contrary, as is well known, 
the colony settled on Christiana Creek, near Wilmington, in 
the present state of Delaware. East of Delaware river 
would have been in New^ Jersey ; but it was Delaware, and 
not New Jerse)", that was called New Sweden. Moreover, 
Mrs. Willard is giving an account of the first settling of 
Delaware, and her account presents the singular inconsisten- 
cy that the first settlement in Delaware was made in New 
Jersey. And to shov/ that the mistake in the location of the 
colony is not a typographical error, it may be mentioned 
that the writer soon after speaks of a Dutch* colony being 
planted " on the west side of the same river." Moreover the 
chronological table in the large work gives the following items : 
" 1627, Swedes and Fins colonize the east side of the Delaware 
river." For authorities with respect to the Swedish settlement 
we refer to Gordon's New Jersey, p. 9, Gordon's Pennsylvania, 
15-16, Dunlap's New York, i. 50, Bancroft, ii. 281, and other 
recent histories. 

The result of the examination given to eight of our most 
prominent school histories, shows a list of more than two 
HUNDRED AND FIFTY ERRORS ;* allowing for those that are 



1 Want of room has obliged us to exclude, from tbis article, the greater por- 
tion of the errors enumerated in the manuscript. — Ed. 



AMERICAN COMMON SCHOOL HISTORIES. 17 

repeated by different writers ; and, of these errors, the vnost 
numerous and most important are found in Mrs. Willard's 
Abridgment. A large number of those enumerated, consist 
of errors in dates ; and when it is considered that compara- 
tively few dates are found in most of our school histories, the 
number we have presented, of this class of errors, must ap- 
pear surprisingly large. In numerous instances, erroneous 
dates might with justice have been inferred from the context, 
and from the order of narration • but these we have in most 
cases passed by. In no case have we enumerated as errors, 
dates given accurately either in old style or in new. With 
one exception, that of the Pictorial History of Goodrich, the 
works reviewed have been before the public from nine and ten 
to twenty-five years ; during which {period abundant time has 
been allowed the authors and publishers for their correction. 
One of these works has recently made its appearance as " Re- 
vised and enlarged from the orie huhdredtk edition ;" in which, 
however, notwithstanding the re?7w/o?i; the old errors have been 
stereotyped anew. If authors will not take the trouble to cor- 
rect their own works, how much are they indebted to those who 
will do the labor for them ! 

4. We now come to the fourth anil last division of 
our subject, the literary merit.s of our several com- 
mon school histories. Here wc nujst be brief, and with- 
out any remarks on what we regard the appropriate style 
for different kinds of school-books, and on the importance of 
always placing in the hands of youth, work both grammati- 
cally and rhetorically correct, we shall proceed to notice only 
such things in our school histories, as require little comment, 
and about which we believe there can be no diversity of 
opinion. 

The writers of some of our school histories have not been 
sufficiently careful to avoid the introduction of language which 
cannot readily be underst(X)d either by teachers or pupils. We 
give a few examples, without specifying authors. 

In a well known and popular school history we have the fol- 
lowing account of a naval battle. " In five minutes the main- 

2* 



18 A CRITICAL REVIEW OF 

top-mast was shot away, and falling down with the main-fop^ 
sail-7/crrd, across the larboard fore and fore-fop-sail yard, 
rendered her head yards unmanageable during the rest of 
the acticHi. In two minutes more her gaff and tnizzen-toj)- 
gallant-7nast were shot away." The author has here incor- 
porated part of the official account of a naval battle, into a 
schaol-btx>lc designed for the reading of children. Although 
douljtless sufficiently intelligible to a seaman, few of the pupils 
in our ^^chools could understand it. And why fill their heads 
with sounds without meaning? 

From another work we quote the following. "Talleyrand 
demanded a donceur of 250,000 dollars for himself," etc. " A 
(jiio vjarj-auto was issued against the company of Massachu- 
setts Bay." etc. '• The French Charge d' Affaires at the Hague,'* 
etc. " The number placed hors dit combat was four hun- 
dred and fifty." Why not say in these cases Talley- 
rand demanded a present, gift or bribe^ etc. ; a writ or inquiry 
or an order was issued ; the mimber disabled or woimded, 
etc. ; tli(i French minister at Hague ? — for these terms would 
have been intelligible to all. 

We (\o not say that these things are characteristic of any of 
our school histories, .but we believe that Hale's history is the 
only one ihat is entirely free from unexceptionable expressions. 
Tiie language of Hale, although generally censured as being 
tan)c and spiritless, we believe to be far superior to that of any 
school iiistory yet published. 

Mrs. Willard's history has received the highest conmienda- 
tions !)0i h for its accuracy and its high literary merits. Of the 
character of its claims to accuracy, we have given abundant 
examples. Its claims to literary excellence we shall now pro- 
ceed to examine with that brevity which the space already oc- 
cupied by our extended review demands. 

In tlu>. following sentence, on p. 17, the figurative and the 
literal are so combined as to render not only the rhetoric but 
the grammar also faulty. "Of ihese hraiiches of the Dela- 
ware or the Algonquin race, the first who figure in the early 
history of our nation were the Poivhatans." This analyzed 



AMERICAN COMMON SCHOOL HISTORIES. 19 

gives the following. The first branches who figure were the 
Poichatan Indians. The relative who here refers to branches ; 
hrancJies are said to figure; and then we are told these 
branches are certain Indians. 

This is exceedingly awkward : " The authorities of Hull 
\\\ the meantime got notice ; and the Dutcli commander, at 
the sight of a large armed company, haviag a fair wind, with 
oaths, hoisted anchor, and sailed away." p. 52. 

The following are obscure and inelegant owing to the fre- 
quent repetition of the pronoun, and the frequent transition 
from one person to another. " " Miantonomoh sought the life 
of Uncas, because he was aware that he could not make hi?n 
unite in a conspiracy which he was exciting against the whites. 
A Pequod whom he hired, wounded the Mohegan chief, and 
then fled to him for protection. He refused to surrender the 
assassin, but dispatched him with his own hand." p. 101. 

' Again, " They set fire to Charlestown. The Americans await 
their approach in silence until they are within ten rods of the 
redoubt. Then taking a steady aim they pour upon them a 
deadly fire. They are thrown into confusion and many of 
their ofiicers fall. They are twice repulsed. Clinton now ar- 

»rives and they again rally," etc. p. 197. On p. 198 we have 
the following language relating to those accused of witchcraft. 
" The unhappy persons were confronted with those who ac- 
cused them, and asked 'Why do you afflict those children?' 
If answered I do not afflict them, they commanded the/n to 
look upon the children, at which they would fall into fits, and 
then declare they were thus troubled by the persons appre- 
hended." After supplying a very awkward ellipsis we will 
construe this sentence. If't/ui/ (the accused, in the plural 
form) answered / (singular form) do not afflict ihe/?i (the chil- 
dren), they (the judges) commanded them (the accused) to look 
upon the children, at which they (the children) would fall into 
fits," etc. 

Of the numerous examples of faulty construction we se- 
lect the following : " By means of his acquaintance with the 
Narragansetts, Williams learned that a conspirac}'^ was form- 



20 A CRITICAL REVIEW OF 

ing to cut off the English, headed by Sassacus, the powerful 
chief of the Pequods." p. 67. The construction here impUes 
that the English were headed by Sassacus. 

•' They reached through many discouragements, by disaster, 
treachery and climate, the great Illinois." p. 119. The con- 
struction and the punctuation of this sentence express the 
meaning that the means used in order to reach the Illinois 
were disaster, treachery, and climate ; whereas, the meaning 
intended was, that there were discouragements by disaster, 
treacher)^, and chmate. The sentence should have been ex- 
pressed thus. Through many discouragements by disaster, 
treachery, and climate, they reached the great Illinois. 

" To survey the estates of Lord Fairfax, then residing in 
Virginia, he first began his career of active life." p. 154. 
This states that he first began his career of active life in order 
to survey the estates of Lord Fairfax. On the contrary he 
began by surveying, etc. The adverb ^r^^ is superfluous. He 
began, is sufficient. 

" He then revealed a conspiracy which the Indians had 
formed and requested him to join." p. 60. By the construc- 
tion the verb requested is in the imperfect tense, having for its 
subject the pronoun he understood ; whereas, the meaning in- 
tended requires it to be in the pluperfect tense agreeing with 
Indians. 

" New Plymouth now began to flourish. For the land 
being divided, each man labored for himself and his family. 
Their government was a pure democracy." p. 60. In this 
extract ther^ is nothing to which the pronoun their can refer. 
Instead of their government, it should have read the govern- 
ment of the colony. On pages 176 and 183 may be found ex- 
amples in which the construction requires a meaning different 
from that intended. 

" Yet they never repined or repented of the step they 
had taken." p. 58. Never should have been followed by 
nor. Or gives an antithesis of sentiment not intended, and 
renders the latter part of the phrase an affirmative declara- 
tion. 



.AMERICAN COMMON SCHOOL HISTORIES. 21 

" .They saw neither sun, moon or stars." p. 52. Again, 
" They neitiier ate, slept or labored, or even worshipped 
God in the sanctuary without arms and ammunition at hand." 
p. 72. Neither should always be followed by nor ; either 
by or. 

Speaking of an error of sentiment and feeling which the 
Puritans indulged, the writer says, p. 114, "This produced 
uncharitableness towards others, and the bad effects of the re- 
hgious sentiment perverted." We suppose the writer designed 
to speak of a perversion of religious sentiment. 

The following requires no comment. " We have already 
mentioned Colonel John Washington. Lawrence Washington 
was his son ; Augustus Washington his." p. 1.53. 

" He gave them their choice, to labor for six hours a 
day or have nothing to eat." p. 42. The unnecessary in- 
troduction of the word for here conveys an idea of price 
which was not intended. The following is somewhat objec- 
tionable for a similar reason. " East Jersey, the property of 
Carteret, being exposed to sale, Penn purchased it for twelve 
(Quakers." 

We give a few examples of the wrong use of words. 
Speaking of the claims which the Dutch made to the country 
bordering on the Comiecticut river, the writer says, p. 47, 
" The court of England disowned those claims," meaniug 
probably, that the court of England denied the justness of 
the claims of the Dutch. The meaning oi disown is not to 
admit as one^s own. One person cannot disown the claims 
of another. 

Again : " The Indian chief freely gave land to Williams, 
whose neighhorlwod he now coveted." p. 67. Neighborhood 
signifies either a community of neighbors or the place they oc- 
cupy, and the word cannot be appropriately applied to proxim- 
ity of person. 

Again : " The governor left the province, and Leisler as- 
sumed to administer the government." To assume to do a 
thing is ail impropriety of speech. Again : " The son of Po- 
cahontas survived and reared an otTspruig v>hich is perpetu- 



22 A CRITICAL REVIEW OP 

ated in some of the best families of Virginia." p. 45. Sorely 
that identical offspring could not liave been perpetuated. Cha- 
racters, principles, races, &c., may be perpetuated, but that per- 
sons may be perpetuated is a new thing in Philosophy. 

We select a few e"xamples which show an occasional lowei- 
ing of the style unbecoming the dignity of an historian. 

"At last a few followers having joined him, he fixed at 
Seekonk, since Rehoboth, within the limits of the Plymouth 
colony." p. 67. " Afterwards they changed their location and 
fixed where Albany now stands." p. 92. " Soon after this 
Zeisberger led a party who fixed for a time on the Alleghany 
river," etc. etc. p. 260. " They gave notice that Massasoit, 
the Sachem of the Pokanokets, was hard hy?^ " The hisah 
manner of Vane, his profound religious feeling, and his great 
knowledge so wrought in liis favor," &c. p. 65. " This would 
naturally hreed quarrels and bloodshed." p. 15. 

We close by noticing a few strictly ungrammatical phrases. 

" He therefore sent out two ships ladened with conscien- 
tious Huguenots." p. 27. (There is no such participle as 
ladened^ 

" The natives were as kindly as their climate and soil." 
p. 34. 

" The admiral, with Sir Thomas Gates and Sir George 
Somcrs, loere empowered to govern the colony until his ar- 
rival." p. 43. (That is, the admiral were empowered.) 

" Before spring, half of their number, among whom was the 
governor and his wife," etc. p. 58. 

" The whole settlement, thus constantly excited, were in the 
feverish condition of intense and continual fear." p. 72. 

" Fear and terror icas on every side." p. 124. " Every oiie 
of Dade's army were killed on the fatal field.", p. 322. 

" If force was em.ployed against them, they would repel it 
by force." p. 176. 

"A large quantify o{ axaniwxnixon and stores loere deposited 
at Concord." p. 193. 

We add from the questions, a few examples of the use of 
the wrong case of the pronoun. 



AJVTERICAN COMMON SCHOOL HISTORIES. 23 

" Who did he send as leader of the colony?" p. 26. 

" Who did the Plymouth company send outT" p. 37. 

" What did the proprietors obtain ?— Who make governor ?" 

p. 63. 

" Who did he send to take the country 7" p. 95. 

" Who did he send over as governor-general?" p. 110, 

" Who did king William send over in 1790 ?" p. 122, 

" Who did Fletcher succeed?" p. 133. 

" WAo did Gtueen Anne- make governor?" p. 134, ' , 

<' Who did Sir Henry CUnton authorize?" etc. p. 238. 

" Who did they make treasurer ?" p. 241, etc., etc. 

We might have made a much larger collection of similar ex- 
amples. Those we have selected are taken exclusively from 
the common school edition of Mrs. Willard's works, although 
we notice, generally, the same, and even more numerous errors 
in the larger history, called the library edition. We ought, 
perhaps, here to remark, that Mrs. Willard's history is not a 
recent work, as many suppose; and that the sentences we 
liave selected have not, therefore, gone forth in haste from the 
hands of the writer, without sufficient time for their revision. 
The original work, if we mistake not, was published more 
than fifteen years ago ; but in the changes througli which it 
has passed, to its present imjn'oved form, well may we ask, 
where are the corrections? 

In our remarks, we trust we have not gone beyond the 
legitimate province of the reviewer ; we have spoken of works, 
now the property of the public, with that freedom which we 
believed the subject demanded ; and should the cause of edu- 
cation gain any thing by our efforts, we shall deem ourselves 
most amply rewarded. 



AN APPENDIX, 

Containing an additional list of the Errors found in our Common 

School Histories. 

[The following comprises only ajjout one-half the errors enu- 
merated in the manuscript Keport ; the whole of which, with a 
large list of errors selected from other than school histories, we 
purpose giving to the public at some future period. If the re- 
searches of others should convict us of having committed errors, 
we shallf ever feel grateful for any information that may lead to 
the truth.] 

Frost, p. 94, says, " Polcanokct, Massasoit and Canonicus welcomed 
Roger Williams to their wigwams," etc. PoA"anoA:e^ was the name of a 
place and uot the name of an Indian. Thus Blake, *' Massasoit had 
.several places of residence, but the principal was Mount Hope or Poka- 
noket." 

Goodrich, p. 25, and S. G. Goodrich's Pictorial History, p. G9, say that 
the celebrated Pequod fort, surprised by Captain Mason in ]637, was " in 
the present town of Stoningtou." This is an error. The town of Ston- 
ington is on the east side of the Mystic river, and the Pecjuod fort was on 
the west side, in the present town of Groton. See Col. of the R. I. Hist. 
Soc. vol. i. p. 25. Trumbull's Connecticut, vol. i. p. 83, and Barber's 
Hist. Collections of Connecticut, p. 312. 

In Goodrich's Pictorial History, it is sta*ed, p. 59, that John Mason, the 
early proprietin- of New Hurajxshire, " was the same Captain Mason who 
afterwards commanded in the Pecjuod war." This is an error. Mason 
died November 26 (O. S), 1635, before the Pequod war commenced. 
Governor Winthrop, in his journal, under date of July 31, 1636, says, 
" The last winter Cai)taizi Mason died." See also Williamson's Maine, 
i. 259, Bancroft, i. 329, and Belknap's Biography, article Gorges and 
Mason. 

Hale, Grimshaw, Goodrich and Olne^'erroneously state that for some 
time previous to 1639, the Virginians had been, by royal authority, de- 
prived of the privilege of electing representatives to their Colonial Legis- 
lature, for the correction of this error we refer to Bancroft, vol. i. p. 
199, note, and numerous authorities. 

Hale, p. 24, Olney, p. 43, and Grimshaw, p. 37, speaking of the naval 
force of Parliament sent out in 1652 to reduce the colonies to submission, 
have fallen into the error that Berkeley (Gov. of Virginia) opposed this 
force, but after making a gallant resistance was defeated, etc., and forced 
to yield. This error has been incorporated in manjs but not in all of our 
early histories. Bancroft, i. 223, (juotiiig from Clarendon, says, no sooner 
had the fleet arrived than " all thoughts of resistance were laid aside." 
Again, the statement of Hale and Olney that during the existence of the 
English commonwealth the liberties of Virginia were checked, and restric- 
tions im])o*d on her commerce, is also en-oneous. Bancroft says, that 
during this period Virginia enjoyed liberties as large as the favored New 
England. See the authorities in Bancroft^.i. 224. Again, Hale .states 
that " during a ])eriod of nine years, governors appointed by Cromwell 
presided over the colony." Olney and Grimshaw make similar state- 



APPENDIX. 25 

merits. Bancroft, giving as authority Hening's statutes of Virginia, sajrs 
that " Cromwell never made any appointments for Virginia," and that 
" not one governor acted under his commission." 

Hale, p. 24, asserts that at the time of the death of Gov. Matthews of 
Virginia, which is known to have occurred in March, 1660, no intelligence 
of the death of Cromwell had been received in Virginia. Yet Cromwell 
died in September, 1658, fifteen months before the death of Matthews, 
and it is well known that Matthews himself announced the event to the 
Virginia Legislature. Hale- also says that the death of Cromwell occur- 
red soon after this event, that is, soon after the death of Matthews. Page 
24 in Hale's History is almost an entire tissue of error. 

Grimshaw, p. 71, under date of 1664, states that a war having com- 
menced between Great Britain and the commonwealth of Holland, the 
king of England assigned to his brother the territories embraced in New 
Netherlands, etc. Yet it is well known that no war existed between the 
two countries at the time. 

Hale, p. 69, says that in 1664 Charles H. granted to his brother " all 
the territory between Nova Scotia and Delaware Bay ;" Olney says, " All 
New England and the territory then in possession of the Dutch." Both 
these statements are ei^oneous. The country granted was from the St. 
Croix to the Kennebec, and then omitting most of New England, from the 
Connecticut to the Delaware. See the boundaries as described in Trum- 
bull's Connecticut, i. p. 266, also in Frond's Pennsylvania, i. 121, and in 
Williamson's Maine, i. 407. 

Mrs. Willard has fallen into an error with respect to the first settle- 
ments in the Carolinas. in North Carolina two separate colonies were 
formed : — the Albermarle County colony, in the northeastern part of the 
State, and the Clarendon County colony, farther south, on Cape Fear 
River, ^ut Mrs. Willard, on p. 95 of the large work, and also on p. 121 
of the Abridgment, by a marginal note, describes the colony on Cape Fear 
River, as being the first in South Carolina. That this is not a typograph- 
ical en'or may be shown from the fact that the writer speaks of these 
settlements as the Carolinas ; meaning thereby. North and South Caro- 
lina ; and besides she speaks of no other settlement being the first in South 
Carolina. 

Hale, p. 67, and Olney, p. 93, state that (in 1664-1665) the assembly of 
Rhode Island passed a law granting to all Christian sects " except Roman 
Catholics" the right of voting, and that they authorized the seizure of the 
estates of Quakers, who refused to assist in defending the colony." The 
first assertion, which is found in Chalmers and many other writers on 
American history, has given rise to much controversy, but there are suf- 
ficient reasoKS for believing that no such law was ever passed in Rhode 
Island. See Knowles's Roger Williams, pp. 321 to 325, also Bancroft, 
vol. ii, jip. 65, 66. See also the supposed law in Holmes's Annals, i. 
336.* With regard to the second assertion, no doubt of its error can now 
be entertained. No law was expressly directed against the Quakers. A 
law was indeed passed, of a very mild nature, requiring all the inhabitants 
to yield " due obedience unto the laws established from time to time." 
To this the Quakers objected that it required them to yield obedience to 

* Dr. (Mt, in his History of Puritanism, charges this supposed law upon the people of Rhode 
Island asThoush it were an admitted fact. Ho argues simply from the repeal of this supposed 
law hy the Rhode Island Legislature in 1783, as contained in the Mass. Ui.st. Coll. 3d series, 
Vol. V. pp. 243, 244. That this " repeal" is evidence quite insufficient to establish the fact, 
Beo the arguments in Bancroft, ii. 65, 06, and authorities there referred to. 



26 APPENDIX 

the militia laws. The next year the law was changed and even a Quaker 
was elected Deputy Governor. A. disposition was at all times manifested 
to consult the feelings and respect the rights of the Quakers. See 
Knowles, p. 324. 

Mrs. Willard, p. 94, large work, and p. 120, Abr., dates the second 
grant of Carolina to Lord Clarendon and others in 1667. The ti^ue date 
is June 30, old style, 1665. Bancroft says June 13, but in the charter 
in Williamson it is written in full, June thirtieth. Mrs. Willard is like- 
wise in an error with respect to the extent of the grant on the south. See 
Williamson's North Carolina, vol. i. pp. 86, and 230, also Bancroft, vol. 
ii. p. 137. 

Frost, p. 158, says, "The first effective settlement in Carolina was made 
at Port Royal in 1670." Hale, p. 100, says, " The Rvst permanent settle- 
ment was made at Port Royal in 1670," etc. The same in Olney, Good- 
rich, etc. These authors also date the founding of old Charleston, in • 
1671. But Hewatt's South Carolina, p. 49, says, " On Ashley rwer the 
first settlement was made that proved permanent." Bancroft, p. 167, 
says, " There is no evidence that the ships did more than sail into the har- 
bor of Port Royal, and after a survey sail out again." Wilson, in his 
Carolina, p. 7, says, " Ashley river was first settled in 1670." Dalcho, 
in his history of the Protestant Episcopal Church in S. C, says that a codi- 
cil to Gov. Sayle's will is dated in Old Charleston September 30, 1670. It 
also appears from Hewatt, i. p. 89, and Archdale, p. 14, that there was 
no settlement at Port Royal in 1684, when the Scotch commenced a settle- 
ment there, which was broken up by the Spaniards in 1686. Thus it 
appears that the first permanent settlement in South Carolina was made 
at Old Charleston on Ashley river in 1670, and that Port Royal was not 
settled till many years later. 

Goodrich, p. 64, cahs Phihp of Mount Hope grandson of Massasoit. 
He was a son of Massasoit. See Blake's Indian Biography, b. ii. ch. 2, 
and b. iii. ch. 2. Gallatin's Synopsis in Archasologia Americana, ii. 40, and 
all the more recent histories. The error first occurred in Josselyn's ac- 
count of two voyages to New England, but has long been known and re- 
jected. 

Goodrich's Pictorial History says that in 1674 the province of New 
Jersey was d vided into East and West Jersey. On the contrary, the di- 
vision was made by deed dated July 1, 1676. See Gordon's New Jer- 
sey, p. 38. 

Frost, p. 110, speaking of King Philip's war, says, "The tribes border- 
ing on Maine and New Hampshire abandoned the war on receiving the 
news of Philip's death." Erroneous. Philip's death occurred August 12 
(O. S.), 1676. The eastern Indians continued the war, and in July of 
the following year, 1677, killed and wounded sixty men in battle, and 
surprised twenty fishing vessels on the coast. Peace was not concluded 
with them until April, 1678. See Belknap's New Hampshire, vol. i. p. 
128, and Wilhamson's Maine, i. 533 to 553. 

Goodrich says, p. 83, that " in 1686, both the Jerseys and New York 
were annexed to New England." This error has probably arisen from 
confounding the two commissions granted to Andros. In 1686 Andros 
was appointed governor of all New England. In 1688 he receiv^a sec- 
ond commission extending his government over New York and Np\v Jer- 
sey. See Graham's Colonial History, b. ii. ch. 5, and Bancroft, vol. ii. 
p. 427, etc. 



APPENDIX. 27 

Frost states on p. Ill that Andros arrived at Boston as Governor of 
New England in 1685. Yet the true date is December, 1686. 

Nearly all our common school histories have committed errors in their 
accounts of the administration of Leisler, who assumed the government 
of New York on the news of the accession of William and Mary to the 
throne of England in 1688. Mrs. Willard has the following language: 
" The people of Albany, in the meantime, were determined to hoVA the 
garrison and city for King William, independent of Leisler, but Milborne, 
son-in-law of Leisler, undertook its reduction, and the distress of the coun- 
try ia consequence of an Indian irruption, gave him the desired success." 
Frost says, " Milborne, the son-in-law of Leisler, was dispatched to Al- 
bany to dislodge them, and an irruption of French and Indians happening 
at the same time, they gave up the ft)rt." 

But Milborne did not undertake the reduction of the fort by force, as 
the language cited would intimate, nor was his small party by any means 
sufficient for that pur])ose. He arrived at Albany November 9 (O. S.), 
1689, but returned to New- York without accomplishing his object, nor 
was it until the spring of the following year, some months after the inva- 
sion by the French and Indians, which resulted in the destruction of 
Schenectady, that Afcany Voluntarily submitted to the authority of 
Leisler. » 

Again, we find the following errors relative to the conduct of Leisler 
on the arrival of Sloughter. Hale, p. 75, says, " Leisler, when informed 
of the appointment of Sloughter, ought to have relinquished the authori- 
ty he had exercised, but he was weak, intoxicated with power, and de- 
termined to retain it. Although twice required, he refused to surrender 
the fort, but sent two persons to confer with the governor, who, declaring 
them rebels, arrested and confined them. Alarmed by this measure Leis- 
ler attempted to escape, but was apprehended, with many of his adher- 
ents, and brought to trial." 

Frost says, p. 132, " He finally abandoned his desperate design of de- 
fending the fort," &c. Olney says, p. 51, " Leisler disputed his authori- 
ty, but after several vain attempts to maintain his power," &c. 

Such accounts are entirely erroneous. On the arrival of Sloughter, 
Leisler acknowledged him as governor, and sent to him for orders, nop 
does he appear to have entertained the most distant idea of holding the 
fort against him. Yet the weak-minded and vicious governor, influenced 
by the enemies of Leisler, imprisoned him, and, on the charge of treason, 
he was condemned to death. A simple merchant, possessing the confi- 
dence of the great mass of his fellow-citizens, Leisler found himself fore- 
most in the ranks (jf those who, on the news of the revolution in England, 
raised the standard of William of Orange. He appears to have act- 
ed with an honest endeavor to promote the public welfare ; and although 
he was guilty of some acts of indiscretion, and was denounced by his ene- 
mies ns a rebel and a traitor, yet his loyalty to his sovereign cannot be 
questioned. He was doubtless an honest man, although not a great man, 
and it is just that his name should be rescued from the obloquy which has 
long rested upon it. For a full account of the administration of Leisler, 
see Dunlap's New- York vol. i. from p. 153 to 211. See also Bancroft, 
vol.ii. ]i. 52. Smith's New- York, from which the errors originated, is 
not m this part entitled to credit. The ^" Act for reversing the attainder 
of Leisler and others," found in Smith, vol. i. Appendix, p. 389, gives a 
brief but true statement of the facts in the case. 



28 APPENDIX. 

Mrs. Willard, on page 97 of the larger work, and 124 of the Abridg- 
ment, in giving an account of tlie expedition of Sir William Phipps 
against Quebec, wliich occurred in 1690, describes the event, accordino' 
to the marginal dates, as happening in 1691, and she likewise erroneous- 
ly sup})()ses that the taking of Port Royal occurred during the same ex- 
pedition. Port Royal, however, was taken by the same commander dur- 
ing a previous expedition in May of .the same year. See Bancroft, iii. 
184; Holmes's Annals, i. 431-2, &c. 

Mrs. Willard, p. 96, large work, and 123 Abridgment, says, " In 1686 
the Ibrt built at Pemaquid was taken by Castine, and thus the French 
claimed as Acadia all Maine east of the Kennebec." This is also placed 
among the events of that date, but it is ten years in advance of its proper 
place in the history. The facts are as follows; From 1677 to 1689 
Pemaquid was in the possession of the English, and during this time peace 
continued. At the latter date. 1689, it was taken by the Indians; but it 
was not until 1696, ten years later than the date given by Mrs. Willard, 
that Castine took it. See a minute history of all these events in William- 
son's Maine, vol. i. pp. 581 to 645. Also, Bancroft, iii. 189. 

Goodrich, p. 98, say« the treaty of Ryswick was concluded December 
10th, 1697. Goodrich's Pict. Hist, also says December. Yet the treaty 
was concluded on the 20th of September ])revious. See Smollet, Phil. 
Edit. p. 135, and the French of D'Anquetil, x. 190. Also Bancroft, iii. 
192 ; Holmes i. 464, &c. The news of the treaty arrived at Boston the 
very day on which Goodrich says the treaty was concluded. Webster, 
p. 117, erroneously dates this very treaty iu 1698. 

Errors of the following nature, frequently found in our school histories, 
sometimes occasion the reader much perj)lexity. Hale, p. 77, says, " The 
next year (1698) the Earl of Bellamont was appointed governor of New- 
York." The truth is, Bellamont was appointed in 1695, but did not ar- 
rive in New- York until April, 1698. The error appears at first to be of 
a trifling nature, but shoixld the reader take the date of Bellamont's ap- 
pointment as given by Hale, and then read in another history that Bella- 
mont, as Governor of New-York, was directed to take active measures 
for the suppression of piracy, and that for this purpose he in connexion 
with others actually sent out a vessel under Captain Kid, in 1696 ! that 
is, according to Hale, before he ivas appointed Governor, he would per- 
ceive a discrepancy which he could not reconcile. Had it been stated 
that Bellamont received his commission in 1695, and that Kid was dis- 
patched from England, no confusion would have arisen. Nearly all our 
common school histories that have mentioned this aflair of Kid, give the 
account as though Kid was dispatched from New-York by Bellamont him- 
self, after the arrival of the latter in the province. See Hale, p. 77 ; 01- 
ney, p. 51 ; Mrs. Willard, p. 134, &c. Mrs. Willard states, p. 134, that 
Kid was executed in 1699. He was arrested in that year, but was not 
executed until May 12th (O. S.) 1701. See Dunlap's New- York, vol. i. 
pp. 231 and 246, and Barber's New- York Historical Collections, p. 536. 

Goodrich, p. 98, gives a lengthy account of an Indian attaclc " on 
Haverhill, Nno Hampshire,^' in 1697. Yet it was not the Haverhill in 
New Hampshire that was attacked, but the Haverhill in Massachiisetts. 
See Mirick's History of Haverhill, p. 86. On p. 96 Goodrich also lo- 
cates the village of Salmon Falls in New Hampshire ; whereas the settle- 
ment destroyed was on the east side of the Piscataqua, in the present 



APPENDIX. 29 

town of Bei-wick, Maine. See Williamson's Maine, vol. i. p. 21, 243 
and G18, and vol. ii. 77. 

In the chronological table of Mrs. Willard's larger work, among the 
events recorded as happening in 1692, is mentioned, " The Jersey's united 
and joined to New- York." The same error is found in the margin of 
the Abridgment, p. 134, while in neither work is the date given in the 
text itself. The true date of this event is ten years later, viz. 1702, as all 
other histories state., 

The plot of the Corees and the Tuscaroras to destroy the settlers of 
North Carolina, is placed by Mrs. Willard, p. 110 large work, and 137 
Abridgment, Frost, p. 157, and Goodrich, p. 106, under the date of 1712. 
And yet the celebrated massacre by the Indians occurred September 22d 
(O. S.), 1711. See Williamson's North Carolina, vol. i. p. 193 ; Ban- 
croft, vol. iii. p. 320, and Gallathi's Synopsis in Arch. Am. ii. 82. The 
date in Holmes's Annals, vol. i. -p. 506, and the brief account there given 
of the war under date of 1712, may have caused the error. The only 
important events of the war occurred iu 1711 and 1713. 

Hale, ]). 105, and Olney, p. 102, state that the Georgia charter, given 
in 1732, embraced the territory now constituting the State of Georgia. 
On the contrary it embraced none of the country south of the Altamaha. 
See Holmes, i. 553; Bancroft, iii. 419, and the- charter itself in McCall's 
Georgia, i. 328-356. The country between the Altamaha and Florida 
was annexed to Georgia after the treaty of 1763, by which Florida was 
ceded to England. See Hewatt, ii. 264, where likewise the boundaries 
of the two Floridas are given. Also Holmes, ii. 115, 116. 

Although the text should not be burdened with dates, yet the follow- 
ing facts show the importance of introducing them either in the margin or 
at the bottom of the ]>age. 

The celebrated " Negro Plot" in New- York, occurred in 1741. Hale 
introduces the account of it in this marnier : " About this time a sup- 
posed Negro Plot," &c., p. 82. Should the question arise, what time ? 
the writer furnishes us no means of ascertaining it. The last preceding 
date is 1736, and the date first following it is 1740. The reader there- 
fore would erroneously infer that the " Negro Plot" occurred between the 
dates 1736 and 1740. 

Hale, p. 108, speaking of the Spanish invasion of Georgia in 1742, 
says, the Spanish tleet " sailed up the river Altamaha and landed on the 
island of St. Simons," &c. This is an eiTor. The Altamaha enters the 
ocean north of the island of St. Simons, but the fleet entered St. Simon's 
Sound south of the island, and did not reach the Altamaha. 

After describing the events of 1746, Hale says, p. 83, " Early in the 
next year a treaty was concluded," &c. Yet the treaty referred to was 
not made until 1748; and had the writer been careful to place the date 
in the margin, probably the error would not have occurred. 

Mrs. Willard in both works dates the depjirture of Washington on his 
journey to the French forts in 1753 on the 31st of November. It should 
be 31st of October. November has but thirty days. 

Mrs. Willard says in a note, p. 128, large work, that in the capitula- 
tion of Fort Necessity Washington signed a promise "not to bear arms 
for a vear against the French." The nearest that any thing in the capit- 
ulation comes tt) this, is a clause requiring that those men whom the En- 
glish should leave behind to look after their effects should " not work up- 
on any buildings in this place, or on this side of the mountain during a 

3* 



30 APPENDIX. 

year," having reference to the erection of Forts, &:c. in the disputed terri- 
tory. (The articles of ca]5iti;lation are in Mante's History of the French 
and Indian War, p. 42, 4to. London, 1772.) 

Hah^, p. 113, says that the expedition against Nova Scotia in 1755, ar- 
rived at its place of destination in April. On the contrary it sailed from 
Boston May 20th (O. 8.), and arrived in June. See Mante's History, p 
17, IS ; Murray's British America, ii. 139 ; Holmes's Annals, ii. 59 
Some of the histories say that Gen. Winslow commanded the exjiedition, 
others say Generals Monckton and Winslow. The British Lieutenant 
Colonel Monckton Avas the commanding officer. See the same au- 
thorities. 

Webster, p. 171, says that General Webh commanded Fort William 
Henry during the siege, and at the time of the surrender of that place in 
1757. Should be Colonel Monro. Gen. Webb then commanded at Fort 
Edward. 

Mrs. Willard in both works erroneously dates the surrender of Louis- 
burg in 1758, on July 6th. The correct date is July 26th. Mante, p, 
153; Holmes, ii. 81, &c. 

Goodrich, p. 137, mentions that three islands were surrendered to the 
English at the taking of Louisburg in 1758, viz.. Isle Royal, St. Johns, 
and Cape Breton. On the contrary. Isle Royal and Cape Breton were 
one and the same island. Isle Royal being the French name. 

Goodrich, p. -139, has the following language: *• It was deteniiined 
that three powerful armies should enter Canada by difterent routes, and 
pttack at nearly the same time all the strongholds of the French in that 
country. These were Ticonderoga and Crown Point, Niagara and 
Quebec.''^ Is it not strange that the author should locate Ticonderoga. 
Crown Point and Niagara, in Canada ? ^ 

Several errors are found in the accounts generally given of the siege of 
Quebec by Wolfe in 1759. Thus the language of Goodrich, p. 141, and 
we believe of all our other school histories, implies that in the attack on 
the French camp, all the troops engaged crossed the Montmorenci in 
boats, many of which grounded, (fcc. On the contrary, those which cross- 
ed in boats crossed, the St. Lawrence from Point Levi, while the troops 
which crossed the Montmorenci forded the stream near its mouth at 
low water, where the tide overflows. Goodrich says, " Montcalm's 
party had now landed, and were drawn u|i on tlie beach in order." We 
suspect that instead of the name of the French General, Montcalm., the 
author designed to write the name of the British General Monckton, for 
that would have been the truth. Goodrich says, after the retreat, Wolfe 
" returned to his (piarters on the Isle of Orleans." So likewise Holmes, 
in his Annals, ii. 91. We believe, however, that his (piarters were at 
that time at the camp on the east side of the Montmorenci. Mrs. 
Willard says, p. 168, " Wolfe broke up his camp at Montmorenci and re- 
turned to Orleans." On the contrary, in the language of IMante, " The 
troops and artillery there were re-embarked and landed at Point Levi." 
The project of ascending the heighis of Abraham, &:c., is generally as- 
cribed to General Wolfe. But the plan was ]iroposed by the three briga- 
diers, MfJiiclston, Townshend and Murray, and it is said was first suggested 
by General Townshend. See Mante, ji. 232 — 2G8, containing a circum- 
stantial account of the siege, and a map ; also Murray's British America, 
i. 176. 

Frost, p. 197, says, " In the spring of 1764 the famous stamp act was 



APPENDIX. 31 

passed. "^ This is an error. On the 10th of MarcTi, 1764, the House of 
Commims voted a resolution purporting that it was proper to change cer- 
tain stamp duties in the colonies and plantations, but the act was not 
passed until the following year, March^ 1765. On p. ] 86 of Frost, the 
resolution here noticed is erroneously referred to as having been passed 
in 1763. The two consecutive errors appear to forbid the supposition 
that either was merely typographical. See Pitkin, vol. i. pp. 163 and 
171; Botta, vol. i. p. 39 and p. 54"; Holmes, ii. 124 and 133, and all 
other histories. 

All (Uir common school histories which have treated of the subject at 
any length have fallen into an error respecting the celebrated resolutions 
introduced into the Virginia House of Burgesses by Patrick Henry, on the 
arrival of the news of the passage of the stamp act. It is generally sta- 
ted that Jive resolutions were introduced by Henry, and that all passed, 
but that the fifth was rescinded on the day following the passage. The 
truth appears to be, that seven resolutions were introduced and five only 
passed, and the fifth was afterwards rescinded. The two most objection- 
able resolutions were not passed, and yet several of our common school 
histories have quoted the sentiments of these two as among those which 
passed. Grimshaw, p. 90, speaking of the resolutions which v.-ere adopt- 
ed, quotes the language of the seventh, which was not ado])ted. 

So likewise Mrs. Willard, p. 150, large work, and ]). 179 Abridgment, 
says, the fifth resolution " declared iu express terms, that they were not 
hound to obey any law imposing taxes unless made by their representa- 
tives." But this was the language of the sixth re-olution and was not 
adopted. See Pitkin's Political and Civil History, vol. i. p]i. 173 — 177 ; 
Wirt's Life of Henry, pp. 74 to 83 ; Gordon, vol. i. p. 118, and S. F. 
Wilson's American Revolution, p. 62, 63, 64. Marshall's account is not 
fully to be relied on. 

The errors into which most of our historians have fallen in this matter, 
have arisen from the circinnstance that the whole seven resolutions were 
circulated together, and published in the papers of the day, as having 
been passed by the Virginia Assembly. Even Botta, vol. i. p. 64, copies 
the whole as having passed, but says that the last two were afterwards 
rescinded. Mr. Wirt supposes that on^i'/-_/i'2;e resolutions were oifered, but 
the fifth does not contain the language quoted in our school histories. 
Whether five or seven resolutions were offered, it is certain that those 
charged as being so objectionable never j^assed. The manuscript journal 
of the Virginia Assembly is lost. 

Hale. p. 132, speaking of the first colonial Congress which assembled 
at New-York in 1765, says, " Delegates from six provinces only Avere 
present.*' Frost, p. 187, gives but eight, omitting Maryland. Both are 
errors. Nine colonies were represented. See Pitkin, vol. i. j). 186. 

Hale, ]). 139, has the following error: "While these events were 
transpiring in the colonies, an attempt, supported by the prime minister, 
was made in England to repeal all the lawa for raising f\ revenue in Ame- 
rica." The prime minister referred to was Lortl. North, and the time 
1770'. We are not aware that any attempt was mafle to repeal all the 
laws for raising a revenue, and if any such projiosition was ever sug- 
gested, it was certainly noif. supported by the prime minister, who declared 
that " a total repeal could not be thought of mitil America was prostrate 
at the feet of the British Parliament." All the duties were repealed ex- 
cept the duty on tea. Sec Pitkin, vol. i. p. 244. 



32 APPENDIX. 

Mrs. Willard, p. 174, large work, and p. 200 Abridgment, has the 
following under date of 1775. " Orders were given to the British naval 
commanders to lay waste and destroy all such seaports as had taken part 
against Great Britain. In consequence FaLmoutk in Massachusetts was ^ 
burned by the orders of Captain Mowatt, of the British nav3^" There is 
but one 1^'ahnoutli in Massachusetts, which is a seaport in Barnstable 
county. The place burned was no other than the present Portland, in 
the State of Maine, which was then included in the town of Falmouth, 
from which it was set-oft", July 4, 1786; see Williamson's Maine, vol. ii 
pp. 434 and 527. It is no excuse for the error that Maine was then in- 
cluded in Massachusetts ; as the statement given must inevitably lead 
the pujul astray. 

Goodrich, p. 174, states, that the assault made on Quebec by Mont- 
gomery occurred on the 5th of December, 1775. It was the 3Ist of 
December, as other histories relate. 

In Mrs. Willard's Abridgment, p. 108, the small map of the vicinity 
of Boston contains three important errors. Dorchester heigMs are repre- 
sented as being west of Dorchester Bay, whereas they are north of the 
bay, and are included in what is now called South Boston. On the same 
map Stony Brook, or Muddy river, which falls into Charles river west 
from Boston is called Neponsett river ; whereas Neponsett river falls into 
Boston harbor, near the village of Dorchester, four miles south from Bos- 
ton. On the same map also, the localities of Bunker's Hill and Breed's 
Hill, have been made to exchange places, each receiving the name that 
belongs the other. 

On map No. 6 of Mrs. W.'s Abridgment, and also on No. 6 of the 
large work, St. Simon's Island, on the coast of Georgia, is ' eri-oneously 
placed some distance north of the mouth of the Altamaha river, whereas 
it should be south. Dover in New Ham})shire is placed" on the east side 
of the Piscataqua, and the fort of Pema(|uid, in Maine, is, in the maps of 
both works, erroneously placed on Penobscot Bay. On map No. 6th of 
the Abridgment, the founding of Montreal is dated 1680, but in the his- 
tory itself, p. 115, in 1640. 

Frost, \). 226, speaking- of the attack on Fort Moultrie, 1776, says, 
*' Some hundreds of the troops landed on Long Island, which lies on the 
west of Sullivan's Island," &c. Long Island is east of Sullivan's Island. 
See maps. 

Goodrich, p. 176, says, " While affliirs were proceeding thus in the 
north, an attempt was made in June and July to destroy the fort of Sul- 
livan's Island near Charleston." The attack was made the 28th of June, 
not in July. 



JID*!-* 












A 





















! 















„ „ - , - ^ 



- V s • • 

V 






I * 



o V 



^Ov; 



>. 



"<^ ' ' " " A^ 



0' 















'^^S 

-^^ 



" " * ^xb 

V. "^ V ^ - ^^ "•' <y 






,Hq 













.>v -V 













o 



. • * 









<r. ' . . '' ^G 



J 



« A. 



aV 



A 



• i 



L ' 



'^O 



O . " o « o 










> 



.. xO-^. 



o V 





* • 



k>^' 






^^^ 



-^. A^ 



<^ 






V 






<i - o 



^^^ 



^^0^ 












\ 



V 









^-^^ 










<>' 






^ 



0> X. 



c 



A-^ 



c 



V ^ 



v^ 



A^^ 






v:?.- 









<p 



c 



0^ 






^ 



0" 






'^^ 0^ 



A , -^ 






" " A 






S> 



^0 v', ' ^ 








■OV' "■"Any aiNDiNa • ^ ' 




% J- 



.>- . 



7^? 

ST. AUGUSTINE 
32064 



- ,^ ' » » ' ^0 %> * » , 

<H> c, " " ° •» ^>.- ,0 



^ o 
,0 r\ •' 



.<^ 



f 



0- 






o 



c\ 



